Trends

 

She’s Like A Rainbow

She comes in colors everywhere

She combs her hair

She's like a rainbow.

What if everyone could see rainbows everywhere?

People are hard wired to see and use straight line, trends, or what mathematicians would call a slope. But a slope can only properly be defined for the points that are known. A problem is when people make predictions by using trends.  E.g. Beanie Babies will ALWAYS increase in value.  The Yankees will never LOSE.  London will be BURIED in horse manure by 1944. 

The problem is when we forecast using straight lines. Life doesn’t always follow straight lines, even if we think following a straight path is considered good and following a curved, crooked, path is bad.

There is nothing wrong with straight lines.  Isaac Newton developed calculus by examining the behavior of infinitely short straight lines.  But the end result of calculus was a way of dealing with non-linear equations, i.e.  equations that are not  straight lines.  Because that is the way the world works.  Newton’s Law of Gravity can be used to describes the flight of a projectile firing upwards as following Gravity’s Rainbow.  

People get euphoric when they are on the upwards part of a trend (e.g. slope greater than one). They  think that things will only get better and their bubble will never burst.  People panic when they are on the downward part of a trend (e.g. slope less than one). They think that things will only get worse and will never hit bottom. The problem is that neither forecast is probably true.  We need to realize that we are on a rainbow ( non-linear curve) and just because we are going up now, it doesn’t mean that we won’t be going down later, and vice versa. If we can agree that we are on a rainbow shape, maybe then we can see the colors of the rainbow too!

Certainty

 

Impossible

Impossible, for a plain yellow pumpkin to become a golden carriage,
Impossible, for a plain country bumpkin and a prince to join in marriage,
and four white mice will never be four white horses.
Such fol-de-rol and fiddle-dee-dee of course is
Impossible.

Do scientists ever say that something is impossible?

People crave certainty.  They want to know that an answer is 100% right, or 0% right, with nothing in between.  This appears to be true in many cases in science.  What a scientist is actually saying is not certainty, but the probability of an event occurring within known physical laws.  When scientists say that there is a 0% chance that something will fall up, they are saying that it there is 0% probability of something falling up in the domain constrained by Newton’s Law of Gravity.  They are not saying that it impossible, just that in this domain there is a zero percent probability of something falling “up”. 

The problem occurs when the constraints of the domain are not well understood, it may appear to people that scientists are not certain.  The fact is that scientist are never certain.  They only state a probability of an event.  When the probability is rounded, it may appear that there is certainty, but that does not mean that there is certainty.

A coin flip is said to be fair if it is 50% heads and 50% tails.  This is because the probability of heads or tails are being rounded.  In fact, for an American nickel flipped on a flat surface, there is a 1 in 6,000 chance that the coin will end up on its edge.  The true odds are thus 49.9992% chance of heads, a 49.9992% chance of tails and a 0.0016% chance of it ending on its side.  It is common to round this to 50%/50%/0%.  Scientists are not saying that it impossible for a coin to land on its side.  They are saying that the probability is so small that it is typically ignored.  While scientists may appear to be certain, they are rounding probabilities and constrained to a known domain.  If the rounding is not ignored, and the constraints of the domain are not known, then they will not appear to be certain.  But they were never certain in the first place, it is just that non-scientists are ignoring the rounding and the knowledge of the constraints.

That is also why there is confusion about what constitutes a scientific theory.  A theory might explain 99.9999% of all cases, but since it can never explain 100% of cases it is called a theory.   A theory has been tested, explains almost all cases, but calling it a theory only acknowledges that there might be some small chance that it might not explain everything, is impossible.  After all the only certainty is death and taxes, not science.

Worker Shortage?

Maggie’s Farm

I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more

No, I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more

Well, I wake up in the morning, fold my hands and pray for rain

I got a head full of ideas that are drivin' me insane

It's a shame, the way she makes me scrub the floor

I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more

The problem with a shortage of workers may NOT be the unemployment “benefits.”

Many Republican led states are terminating pandemic related unemployment benefits because of a concern by employers that people are unwilling to work because those unemployment benefits are so "great".  That pre-supposes that wages are the only reason that there is a difficulty in finding workers.  It couldn’t be job safety, health benefits, working conditions, nature of the work, etc.😉  If the only reason that people work is because of what you pay them, then perhaps those employers are correct. However there might be another reason that they don’t want to work on your farm no more.  Just because you want someone to work for you without benefits and at low wages, doesn’t mean that you can expect to fill that job.  The old saying that “If wishes were horse, then beggars would ride’ applies to those employers who are acting like beggars.

Minimum wage, maximum hours, child labor, safety laws, etc. exist for a reason.  It is not only to protect your workers, but also to protect you as an employer from competitors who may be willing to provide less than a fair wage, etc. to their own workers.   A floor exists to keep everyone out of the basement. Otherwise the most successful employers will be the ones that are willing to race to the bottom and don't mind living in the basement. Bob Dylan, the Nobel Prize laureate, might be onto something.   It isn't the pay for working on Maggie's Farm, it is a lot more than that.

Dynasties

 

This Ain't Dallas

This ain't Dallas and this ain't Dynasty
This is a real-life two job working family
And I ain't J.R., you ain't Sue Ellen
We're just a man and a woman holding things together

While he might like the TV Series Dynasty,
former President Trump appears not to like political  Dynasties.

Former President Trump appears to have a special contempt for Bushes, Romneys, and Cheneys.  This is hardly surprising .  No matter how hard he tries, he will always be a Trump and not a Bush, Romney, or Cheney.  He also famously clashed with the Manhattan dynasties as an outsider from Queens.  He does not have a problem with exclusive clubs or class systems.  He just has a problem with not being the highest ranking member of any exclusive club.  He doesn’t seem to have a problem with Donald Jr., Eric, Ivanka, Jared Kushner, Laura, Kimberly Guilfoyle, etc., so clearly he isn’t opposed to dynasties, as long as it is his dynasty.

If you are opposed to dynasties like the ones above, or to Clintons or Kennedys in the Democratic Party, then shouldn’t you be opposed to any dynasty, even those named Trump? If you don’t, then your problem is not with Dynasties, but that you are not in those Dynasties

Framework for Human Behavior II

 

Both Sides Now

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all

What if that is because there are more than two sides?

In previous blog posts, I have discussed classification systems.  https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-blind-men-and-elephant.html, and https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2020/06/horse-in-striped-pajamas.html. As I paraphrased Mark Twain,   “There is only ONE TRUE classification system, in fact there are SEVERAL of them.”  A basic feature of all of these classification systems is that they are typically not equal except at the most detailed level, and use more than 2 attributes.  If your classification system is only sizes of round holes, remember, square pegs don’t fit in round holes.   Physicists say that there are four forces: gravity, electro-magnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear.  Physicists also classify matter as having mass, charge, and spin.  Economists describe goods by attributes defined as rival and exclusive.  The Meyer-Briggs personality test uses four attributes.  Hogwarts sorted  students into four houses.  The number of classifications, aka sorting bins, is the number of attributes squared.  Liberal and conservative is only a one dimensional classification.  Liberal and conservative are only extreme values of the same attribute.

This was prompted by a  recent article that claimed that Rep. Elise Stefanik used to be a moderate.  That is based only on grading how often a vote was characterized as conservative or liberal.  Grading someone on only one characteristic, liberal or conservative, misses nuances .  If  more than one attribute had been used, what had been classified as moderate, might have been different if more attributes had been used. In a previous blog post, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-framework-for-human-behavior.html , I proposed a framework for human behavior that classified individuals based on two attributes that could be characterized as: Rights versus Duty, and Nature versus Nurture.  I would like to amend that framework to add a third dimension, attribute, to my proposed framework: respect for the truth, facts, reality.  By that I mean real facts, not alternate facts.  That means that there are nine sorting bins for human behavior: formed by various combinations of  Rights vs. Duty; Nurture vs. Nature; Reality vs. Fantasy.

By respect for truth, I don’t expect that anyone will always speak the absolute truth. Sometimes they may tell a little white lie, but they still respect the truth.  But those who believe that they can create their own truth, believe that their lies are the truth.   This may explain why it is so difficult to debate policies if the opposite side does not agree to use facts. A debate between opposing policies requires different interpretations of agreed upon facts.  If one side makes up facts, there can be no debate.

Opinions

 Crazy

Crazy

I'm crazy for feeling so lonely

I'm crazy

Crazy for feeling so blue

So how crazy are you?

“All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.”- Mark Twain

Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose.  Mugwumps are no more. They often switched party affiliations between Republican and Democrats, but the United States will eventually revert to a two-party system, and the Mugwump factions were absorbed into the  parties that we have today.  But otherwise what was observed to be true by Twain long ago is still true.   In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane, at least that seem to be the standard today.

But this only covers opinions.  As Sen. Moynihan famously put it, “You are entitled to you own opinions, (as insane as I and Twain might think they are), but you are not entitled to your own facts.”  Opinions are differing interpretations of facts.  “Opinions” based on things that are not facts, also known as lies, are worthless and can not, and should not, even  be considered to be opinions.  There was a fairness doctrine that used to require the airing of all opinions.  However no “fairness” doctrine could ever be assumed to cover lies.  Just because you call it an “opinion” does not change the fact that it is a lie.  If differing opinions are insane, how bad is claiming lies to be “opinions”?  Claiming the earth is flat in NOT an opinion, it is a lie.  Claiming that it is an opinion does not make it an opinion, any more than calling a dog a cat makes that dog a cat. It just means that you are crazy.

Qualified Immunity

 

I Fought The Law

Robbin' people with a six-gun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I lost my girl and I lost my fun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won

But what is the Law?

The Law is the word of the sovereign.  In absolute monarchies, the Law is the word of the monarch acting as the sovereign, (i.e. L’etat, c’est moi).  In democracies the people are the sovereign, and the people speaking through their legislature, are the Law.  It is not possible for the sovereign to act against the law.  For example,  under the current law an action may be illegal. If the sovereign knowingly takes that action , that may be violating the CURRENT law, but since the sovereign’s word is the law, that action is the NEW law. The sovereign is thus considered to be immune from existing laws.  However if the sovereign himself is considered to be subject to the laws of another, for example, the Divine right of kings, then his actions may violate the Divine laws of his Divine sovereign.

A sovereign can not be expected to enforce all of his laws.  Officers of the sovereign, the law, may be required to carry out their commands, laws.  When they do, they are acting as agents of the sovereign, and if their actions are in conflict with the current laws, those actions may have qualified sovereign immunity.  Police officers are considered to be agents of the sovereign.  When they are enforcing the law, their actions may have sovereign immunity, if those actions can be qualified as actions of the sovereign.

Thus a police officer who commits murder in the course of his actions has qualified immunity only if the actions that led to that murder can be considered to be the actions of the sovereign.  If those actions are not considered to be the actions of the sovereign, then qualified sovereign immunity does not exist. 

That is the reasonable doubt that must be considered by a jury.  If the actions of an officer of the sovereign, e.g. force in apprehending a suspect, led to the death of that suspect, the question is whether it was reasonable to consider that force to be the action of the sovereign.  If that force was consistent with the actions of the sovereign, then, even if that force resulted in death, that action has sovereign immunity.  But those actions are qualified.  If those actions can reasonably be considered to exceed the actions of the sovereign, then they are not covered by qualified sovereign immunity.

There is a difference between being an agent of the law and the law.  You can’t fight the law, but you can fight agents of the law, when they are not acting as agents of the law.